Historical Revisionism

Hello To you all

I think it depends on the individual historian and if they actually have a point or are trying to look profound and get attention. Some revisionism is simply so far from what is generally accepted that there seems little or no point for it. However, some revisionist historians such as G.R. Elton (on Henry VIII) and Richard Evans (on Nazi Germany before the war) do have some serious points and reasons to back up their interesting claims. A distinction has to be made from so called "t.v. historians" who often contradict generally accepted historical fact to get more viewers. Many people don't seem to realise that one can still explore the issues of a certain area in history without neccesarily taking a so called "revisionist" role and, as you say, to some extent, every historian is a revisionist in their own right.

History is more pliable than mathematics or physics, so it invites revisionism.  Historical fads have their day in university seminars and are then replaced by other fads (often when the professors who support them start retiring or stop publishing).

Edited by pikeshot1600 - 05-Jun-2008 at 15:37

An old saying, "history is written by the winner" Need I say more? Principally, because there is little doubt that every society tries to idolize its history, "history" will always be intentionally distorted to tailor to the particular society's needs. If you need anymore evidence, then simply ask why are there so few literature favorable to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, both groups were rebels who dispose their governments. There must be a reason for this, right? Until the Anglos are disposed, I highly doubt history will be revisited

   

I thought I'd post here, where all the previous posters are already gone to greener pastures, etc., and state my views towards "revisionism"!

I would contend that to a great many people, the very word "revisionist" is most often directed to the "Holocaust deniers", and nothing more! This of course gives the word a negative slant, even though a lot of "revisionism" has nothing to do with the Nazi's or the Holocaust!

To me, "Revising History", is "revisionism!" That is, I feel that history and chronology as we now accept it in the mainstream of academia, is wrong at many points, and fiction in general!

Now, when I used the words in the last paragraph, I am pointing directly to reported historical events that preceed (for the most part) the invention of the printing press, and the period of time we now call the "Renaissance!", for it is in this time that much of the history before it, was created or mal-formed!

I base my ideas upon the shoulders of those who have preceeded me, men like Newton, Rohl, Velikovsky, and the Fomenko Group, amongst others un named.

Sir Isaac Newton is known to this day as a great genius for most of his works, but in the field of chronology and history, he is considered as a "senile old man!", and mention of his historical works is usually omitted from accounts concerning him!

Velikovsky, was throughly ridiculed by the academic community for his works, but most of the ridicule originated in his theory concerning solar bodies and the Earth! Physics was not his long suit, I guess!

Others who attempted to make a large departure from the accepted dating system were similarly discriminated against to greater and lessor degrees! Most often their views were merely ignored by the establishment with curt mention!

In order to give some of you who are not familiar with "history revisionism", I would suggest that you read the following;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism and; this site, which should be kept at a distance from my views;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)

And, to understand the current establishment view of the works of the Fomenko Group, you should read this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko)

I would also suggest that you might take the time to read the discussion page connected to the Wiki article for more information that is kept from the main page! You may even see some remarks made by yours truly?

And if math is one of your favorites maybe you will enjoy this?

http://revisedhistory.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm

But, if you fail to take the time and actually read the Fomenko books, then you will enjoy Wikipedia's view of them;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Regards,

Edited by opuslola - 13-Feb-2010 at 14:06

Opuslola wrote-

Edited by red clay - 26-Mar-2010 at 08:01

Foemenko proposes a series of "set-backs" or if one prefers "set-forwords" that can be used to connect false history to real history!

But, before I go any further, I await some response to my earllier posts?


Come on now! I can take it?

I Actually did read about 40% of his first Internationally published work.  Until my sensitive tum tum started acting up.  I have an allergy to " tincture of Bovine". 

Historical revisionism is neccessary to continue the quest to form a better understanding of the past. If we accept without questioning the 'Good Queen Bess and Bad King John' theory of History as EH Carr put it then we risk grossly misunderstanding our own progress. We must always question and reform where neccessary. My own research interests are revisionistic, challenging the status quo and providing other alternatives.

The problem is that revisionsim has something of  a bad reputation, one can come up with alomst any theory and put it under tha banner of historical revisionism.

<<Personally I distinguish between theories that offer different explanations of the same historical facts (acceptable in principle, though arguably wrong), and theories that deny the facts themselves (unacceptable).>>